Hello Everyone! I have been looking around and can't seem to find a solid answer to this. What message will cgminer present if I discover a block? I'm sorry if this has already been answered, I just can't seem to find the answer on here. I know ck will post in this forum when someone gets a block and of course I would just keep my eye on my BTC wallet, but I was just curious what would be presented in cgminer. Sorry for the super noob question, I'm just happy to be here and to be a part of this.  Thank you so much! It would looks like this !  Source : Google Link"Found Block!" is probably something a lot of people have never seen in their whole lifetimes  I hope ckpool finds their block soon, it's been way too long. |
|
|
|
For less than a month you've been able to earn 80% profit even current market is very volatile and bearish what more if market become bullish? Anyway good luck to your goal and i'm confident you can achieved it.
I don't think there'd be much of a difference honestly. OP doesn't really bank on large swings, he day-trades on small corrections. Those happen no matter the trend, and as long as he keeps timing them correctly, he should be able to keep it up. |
|
|
|
hi i know displaying any parts of private key is dangerous ( Especially the first character ! )
is possible Brute-force attack ethereum private key missing a 20 character in the end ?! - What time is expected
i think it's possible and Easy Especially ethereum the range ( 0-9 , A-F ) The odds are lower
What do you think about that?
I'm not familiar with ethereum very well, but what format is this private key? In bitcoin for example bruteforcing a key written in WIF would be harder than the original hex used to generate it. Also like arulbero mentioned, you need to know the address you're looking for, because if for example, you only know if you have the right key once the balance of your target is not zero, your search becomes a LOT slower. |
|
|
|
Well if you don't bother reading it I am not sure how more reading fixes it but ok, I suppose you can start here.Cheers. This is a different thread (might have some relation) and roughly going through it I don't see any problem with setting a foundation for negative feedback. In fact, IIRC, there is a thread about ongoing discussion relating to that very issue. From what I see, this local issue starts from this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49511282#msg49511282Am I correct? If not, where should I start reading on this thread? I'm pretty sure people came to this thread with pre-existing judgements and opinions on each other. I tried several times to keep the discussion on topic and discuss DT, and trust related problems, despite the interventions of some members. But at this point, all of them started having a go at each other, and this thread has officially gone to shit. |
|
|
|
The best answer would be to try it by yourself. Theoretically, it should be faster than CPU/GPU though. Personally I think OCL is fast enough to create an address/key pair. On top of that, we can use split key too. Loyce has a nice tutorial about this.
Why does it has to be split key? I see many ppl rent AWS to run vanitygen for normal key pair but never seen any private key get leak, are there really any incident that VM service stalk on ppl activity to steal key? If you generate your own private key it makes no difference as long as you're sure no one else has access to it. Split key generation is used when someone has the processing power, and wants to generate a vanity address for someone else. None of them know the private key unless they have both split solutions to it. |
|
|
|
How many such combinations are possible?
Infinitely many. The signature algorithm used in Bitcoin is called ECDSA. One part of creating a signature with ECDSA is generating a random number (known as a nonce) and combining it with the private key. Every time you make a signature, you generate a new random number. This nonce is very important and cannot be known to anyone else or be used in different signatures. Otherwise the private key can be derived from the signature. This is what you are observing here. However some software will, instead generate the random number by hashing the private key and the message being signed. This will make a number that is random enough, secret (because the private key is also secret), and extremely unlikely to be seen in different signatures. This will result in the same signature when you signing the same message multiple times. That's really interesting actually. But for OP's case, if the random number wasn't generated using the message itself (which I assume is the most common way nowadays as each unique message will have its own number), how do verification algorithms verify all the signatures above? |
|
|
|
Regardless of how crazy this ended up to be (out of all events that could have delayed bakkt the gvt shutdown is probably the last thing they expected), we still have a long way before this competition ends.
As long as bakkt is definitelh launching this year, most picks around the 6-10k range are the most likely to win.
Likely the government shutdown is merely an excuse, and if they are going to launch, they would rather launch in a more hype-filled climate. That makes sense too. The main market share of bakkt would be US investors and institutions, and those are probably one of the closest people to be affected by the shutdown. Hopefully this gets solved soon. |
|
|
|
Morning all, I've just updated the sheet. If the Patriots win then almost everyone will be going through, if the Rams win I'm not going to have many entries for the next round1 Rams predictors, do you have some kind of cheeky inside knowledge, or are you taking a punt on the underdog?  Ronnie @ CloudbetI've sent you a pm 24 hours ago btw, would like those free spins. Commenting here for visibility. |
|
|
|
In other words, more government shutdown drama in 3 weeks... .. which will likely put off any BAKKT submissions and decisions. For how long? Your guess is as good as mine, but I would be surprised to see any possible meaningful BAKKT or anything like that in the next 6 months, yet maybe I am just a bit too much of a pessimist based on our recent stagnated (and even seemingly negative) ongoing BTC price performance.
Unfortunately I totally agree with you. It was sure from the beginning it would get delayed like anything seems to be in the crypto world today, but I didn't expect it to be that challenging. Let's hope for end of 2Q '19  Regardless of how crazy this ended up to be (out of all events that could have delayed bakkt the gvt shutdown is probably the last thing they expected), we still have a long way before this competition ends. As long as bakkt is definitelh launching this year, most picks around the 6-10k range are the most likely to win. |
|
|
|
Are you looking to run a full node or just hold a few bitcoins and do some transactions here and there? You dont need to go through downloading the entire blockchain, you can just use Electrum that doesn't require you to do that. Here is a quick comparison between the two and for the average user, Electrum should be just fine. https://cryptorival.com/wallets/bitcoincore-vs-electrum/ My guess is that OP is trying to run a full node. If he was trying for a simple wallet then he could use any web wallet easily or any exchange wallet too once he would realize that it's taking too much time to sync the core. These are my guess by the way. Fact that he doesn't know why it's taking so long means probably the opposite. OP just wants to transact some btc and doesnt know that bitcore is a full node client. OP maybe you should try a different wallet, most people would recommend electrum.org , but remember to be safe and not trust any weird messages coming from it. Some of those are not initiated by the software, but by the nodes. |
|
|
|
I don’t think it is best to have a trust system in which all ratings are based on trades. There are plenty of reasonably legitimate reasons to leave both positive and negative ratings for non-trade related reasons, an attempt to scam is a good example of this.
If you are going to have any influence in the trust system, at a bare minimum, you should have trade experience. Similarly, someone with a lot of positive trust, should have trade experience, maybe not necessarily from the specific ratings they have, but in general, positive ratings should be observations of someone being able to trade and be trusted.
I'm talking more about green ratings rather than red. Still, even a scam attempt is considered trade related. It can have a risked amount, and is not something subjective to the person leaving red trust. But it's obviously good to leave red ratings on behaviour like account trading, shady behaviour and whatnot. It's not okay to leave green ratings for "valuable contribution" to the forums. When someone is tagged green, imo I want that to mean that the person is trusted with money. Anyone can act "nice". |
|
|
|
Things like that happened exactly because people like you listened to quicksy's nonsense. Your input is mostly a waste of time anways: On one hand you want no intervention by e.g. me, on the other hand you are complaining that we're heading towards scam land. Which is it again?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemmaFalse Dilemma is a type of logical fallacy, which is a belief or claim based on mistaken reasoning. False Dilemma is a fallacy based on an "either-or" type of argument. Two choices are presented, when more might exist, and the claim is made that one is false and one is true Stop trying to smartass me Lauda. Every reply you've ever given me so far was some sort of attempt at dramatizing the situation or taunting me. I speak and express genuine concerns I have, through my own experiences, and if I ever mention you, I only refer to you based on your actions (a.k.a if anyone did what you did, I'd express my disagreement against that specific thing, exactly the same way.) Since I really couldn't care who you are behind that keyboard in this virtual world, I was tempted to ignore you, but I realised I should let you know why. If you keep writing these jokes of arguments, and kind of attacks that only mean to get some sort of response out of me, from now on I'm going to ignore you. I never meant to dislike you, I always have disagreements with some people, and it's normal. But for you, outside of your judgements on "scammers", you're actually a very childish person. And I know myself, I just couldn't give two fucks about drama. So, peace. |
|
|
|
This is a good example of people being added to DT1 who do not have a proven track record of acting in a trustworthy way, and in many cases, do not have any meaningful (if any at all) trading experience. I am not sure this is a good thing.
Honestly I have to agree with you, knowing full well the majority of the forum doesn't. (Even if they might say otherwise, their votes say something else.) I'd LOVE to see a trust system based on nothing but trades, risked amounts, and anything with money involved, but apparently its too hard to implement. But it's really hard to go against the current when so many people wont believe this. In the end we all just have to use our personal judgement in trades. (And I sincerely hope another Master-P scandal doesn't happen again, because by the looks of it that's exactly where we're headed, I just hope I'm not part of it this time around.) |
|
|
|
|
Your side chain needs enough nodes and hashing power to counter 51% attacks.
You're pegging your side-chain coin value to the main-chain, but your transactions, blockchain, basically everything becomes independent. It's obvious that in the case someone gets control over 51% of the nodes or hashing power of your chain, they could pick transactions to double spend, or through a sybil attack if they control too many nodes. Your problems are exactly the same of every other chain, with only 2 differences :
1. The initial coins you used to create the side-chain are what you would hypothetically call your "genesis block".
2. You can exchange those coins to main-chain coins at the designed rate when you distribute your side-chain coins.
|
|
|
|
Lending - Haven't tried this so far
I think that one option you have is lending at Poloniex or such. Maybe the income is not that big and probably you need to get KYC with Poloniex, but the chances you get screwed are much smaller. I am saying about Poloniex because I did some lending there a couple of years ago and it was ok back then. I don't know how is it now. Poloniex is a nice exchange, but either a lot of people have figured out that lending is nice profit, or the bear trend has caused many to just hodl. https://poloniex.com/lending#BTCThe rates are atrocious, constantly less than 0.006%, so for a 100 btc you make 0.006 btc in profits.... It's really way too competitive for a decent profit, and in case someone gets burned through his margin position, you're not going to get your profits and your original sum is going to get returned forcefully. To OP, it's hard to make money from money if you don't have a lot of it. Try finding a source of income that doesn't put your existing small capital at risk. |
|
|
|
|
I don't think selling merit would be against the rules. The whole reasoning why it wasn't banned in the first place was because if you ban account selling on bitcointalk, people are going to sell them elsewhere. The black market for such things will always exist. Same for merits.
So since selling an account means you do not care about trust, you promote scammy behavior, etc... Selling merit probably would take the same judgement, because when you sell merit you're making people look like something they shouldn't be.
Mods don't have time to waste on monitoring a black market that will exist regardless, so it figures to just leave it to the community to red-tag any people contributing to that kind of behavior. Which honestly makes sense, if you can make an alt account go ahead, but if people know that you sell accounts it means you cannot be trusted. Same for giving/receiving fake merits, it means you're doing it for some sort of un-ethical reason..
|
|
|
|
The private key would be visible when you make the code. But if after that you encrypt the code with sch, you will not able to see the private key, but if you run the encrypted code it will print the PK if the "IF" is true. The magic step is while you encrypt the bash script #Cypherpunk Makes sense, bash can easily be turned into binary and linux can easily run that binary code. This could work, you just need to figure out how to ping blockchain.com's (or any other) api to retrieve the price. |
|
|
|
Afternoon all, I'm just working through this weeks entries and updating the spreadsheet. I've only received 18 Cloudbet nicknames from the first round of knockouts so far, but I'll start sending out the free spins now. If anyone is interested in betting on this weekend's Superbowl action, we have all the usual lines with low margins, plus over 320 specials that cover everything from total missed field goals to the coin flip! We are also offering some of the highest stakes for Superbowl crypto betting, up to 20 BTC! Thanks, Ronnie @ CloudbetI have sent you a PM to claim my free spins by the way, good luck to all the participants. I hope someone makes it to the top prize, that would definitely be a nice sight. |
|
|
|
----
Yes but how are you going to store the private key? What I said is that it's not easy to come up with a solution where neither you or anyone will access the private key before one of the two things happen. Time-locks are safe because the money is stuck until the block height is reached. Storing the private key is not safe, because at any time you, or anyone can look at the source code and extract it. Hashing it also won't work because it's one way. I'm still thinking of one last thing which would be split-key generation. But I can't gather the thought yet. |
|
|
|
I am not sure if I understand the 4chan reference, at all.
Is there some kind of implication that 4chan is an out of control (or wild and unwieldy) place in part due to its size? And therefore the changes to this forum's trust system has moved this forum in that chaotic and wild direction?
At this point, I see the changes in DT to be causing: 1) more input from regular members regarding which members might get on DT1 (specifically through the weighted merit voting), which thereafter affects DT2 and subsequent DT layers and 2) a likely expansion to the number of members who are on DT1 (and by implication increasing the number of members on DT2 and subsequent DT layers - moving more members up to higher levels of DT).
So, in that regard, if I am correct in my above guess about what OgNasty and you mean to imply by the 4chan comment, then there could be some truth to your statement that this forum is moving more in a direction of a more dispersed power structure, yet there seems to be some attempts at systemizing this place in a kind of way that attempts to organize the chaos and therefore the changes to DT may not go so far as having the level of chaos that is implied by OgNasty's above quoted (and seemingly exaggerated) attempted comparison about the current situation.
By the way, to me, it seems that sometimes strong comments and perhaps harsh language might be needed and useful in order to clearly and unambiguously make certain points.
Calling it chaos is a bit out of touch. If the DT member fills this criteria : I will periodically (maybe every month) be reconstructing the default trust list to include everyone who matches these criteria:
- If rank was determined solely using earned merit, then you must be of at least Member rank.
- You must have been online sometime within the last 3 days.
- Your trust list must include at least 10 users, not including ~distrust entries.
- You must not be banned or manually blacklisted from selection.
- You must have posted sometime within the last 30 days.
- You must have at least 10 people directly trusting you each with an earned merit of at least 10, not including merit you yourself sent. These "votes" are limited.
- You must have at least 2 people directly trusting you with an earned merit of at least 250, not including merit you yourself sent. These "votes" are limited.
Then it's safe to say that the included users at least have some basic understanding of the forum rules, etiquette, and the fact that they are trusted by a handful of others means they at least managed to convince a small group to include them. Let's say that this list includes 50 users, the fact that they fill the criteria means they won't think in the detriment of the forums to purposely create chaos, simply for their own sake. They ARE trusted members after all. So in the end, disagreements will only come out of conflicting subjective opinions on other users. Is it chaos? No. It's decentralization. If half the default trust or more agrees that X is good or bad, and IF all their opinions are their own, then the trust system is working great, and that user is objectively judged by the network. Any attempt at monitoring, investigating, modifying, or judging a DT member's choices by other members, creates room for manipulation. It's not an attempt at organizing it, it's an attempt at centralizing it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
